Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:06 AM 4/6/98 +0200, you wrote: >You know, that I truelly respect and appriciate your opinion, Erwin. >I'm just asking myself: If the physical parameters support one side, >and the emotional view supports another side - isn't the test missing >something essential which is vivid to human perception ? Alf, I think some people just like the way lenses in the "good old days" render pictures and are used to that, and so they reject, or don't like as much, the way newer lenses perform. Kind of like I have this nostalgic attitude towards the image quality of newspaper photojournalism in the 70s. It's harsh (Ansel Adams called it "soot and chalk") and grainy, and the shadow detail stinks, but it has a look that I really like. Not that I would do my own work like that, but I really like the feeling it gives. One is not inferior by any means, but it's different. I really think that Leica lenses do have a family resemblance, but the newer lenses they make are much sharper, cleaner, have less flare and all that. But they still look like Leica. And that's the look I love. Maybe the difference comes at the cost of the bokeh being different. But I don't notice that at all. I think my 35 Summilux ASPH is the cats meow. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Is reading in the bathroom considered Multi-Tasking?